Enlisted Drone Pilots

[ILoveScotch]

I suspect it won't be long before a human operator isn't even required. Ground guy drops a target on a secure handheld moving map display, selects ordnance from drop down menu and hits "call for fire". RPA maneuvers itself appropriately and releases ordnance, providing time till impact on said display.

Soon, my friends. It's just a matter of time/code...

[Lawman]

I suspect it won't be long before a human operator isn't even required. Ground guy drops a target on a secure handheld moving map display, selects ordnance from drop down menu and hits "call for fire". RPA maneuvers itself appropriately and releases ordnance, providing time till impact on said display.

Soon, my friends. It's just a matter of time/code...

We can and do already do that with other systems.

Like I said AFATDS (Advanced Field Artillery Data System) pretty much takes the calculating and decision making out of the human discussion because that's where the greatest probability of induced error exists. Every time you lengthening the chain from the customer to delivery you create one more place somebody to question an error but also for a grid to be miffed or target location to suddenly change CDE/etc. If we spent more money into those systems there is nothing that would stop them from including some kind of "Arsenal drone" into a system like that. Just the cost to develop the software and the dedication in training to teach the guys how to implement it effectively.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lawman]

I suspect it won't be long before a human operator isn't even required. Ground guy drops a target on a secure handheld moving map display, selects ordnance from drop down menu and hits "call for fire". RPA maneuvers itself appropriately and releases ordnance, providing time till impact on said display. Soon, my friends. It's just a matter of time/code...

We can and do already do that with other systems.

Like I said AFATDS (Advanced Field Artillery Data System) pretty much takes the calculating and decision making out of the human discussion because that's where the greatest probability of induced error exists. Every time you lengthening the chain from the customer to delivery you create one more place somebody to question an error but also for a grid to be miffed or target location to suddenly change CDE/etc. If we spent more money into those systems there is nothing that would stop them from including some kind of "Arsenal drone" into a system like that. Just the cost to develop the software and the dedication in training to teach the guys how to implement it effectively.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I mean hell I can take Level 3/4 control of a Shadow V2 or Grey eagle and steer his sensor, designate with it, and then fire missiles at said target. It's not much of a stretch for me to start shooting with an Armed Grey Eagle.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Nobody]

Obviously e's could do the job, however I think attrition rates skyrocket leading to wasted money on those studs who couldn't make it through doss/riq.  Being a prior-e I knew many sharp amn/ncos who could easily make it through the program, conversely I knew many more mouth breathers who would be just as eager to volunteer and sand bag the program as a whole.  You have to draw the line in the sand somewhere to separate those who can or can't.

[SurelySerious]

Obviously e's could do the job, however I think attrition rates skyrocket leading to wasted money on those studs who couldn't make it through doss/riq.  Being a prior-e I knew many sharp amn/ncos who could easily make it through the program, conversely I knew many more mouth breathers who would be just as eager to volunteer and sand bag the program as a whole.  You have to draw the line in the sand somewhere to separate those who can or can't.

They keep pitching this as a fix for retention problems. They can't keep an enlisted sensor operator on AD to save their life, but they can't see that somehow it will likely be the same.

[guineapigfury]

2 hours ago, SurelySerious said:

They keep pitching this as a fix for retention problems. They can't keep an enlisted sensor operator on AD to save their life, but they can't see that somehow it will likely be the same.

This.  We can't keep pilots for O-4 money + a $225k bonus, I cannot understand how we expect to keep them for E-4 money.  If we had any sense, we'd hand over the bulk of the RPA enterprise to contractors and keep a skeleton crew of designated hitters to take the shots.   

[Clark Griswold]

31 minutes ago, guineapigfury said:

I cannot understand how we expect to keep them for E-4 money.

This is probably what A1 is thinking...

 

[Lawman]

They keep pitching this as a fix for retention problems. They can't keep an enlisted sensor operator on AD to save their life, but they can't see that somehow it will likely be the same.

This.  We can't keep pilots for O-4 money + a $225k bonus, I cannot understand how we expect to keep them for E-4 money.  If we had any sense, we'd hand over the bulk of the RPA enterprise to contractors and keep a skeleton crew of designated hitters to take the shots.   

There comes a point in the manpower to tasking and quality of life drop that no amount of money will make people deal with whatever it is.

Again what you need is a mass infusion of bodies in a hurry. Holding the line at 60-69% manning means no matter what cash you throw you will have burn out. Problem is it will take far longer to get officers into those seats than to spool up an enlisted school. Nobody is saying this is the permanent fix, but if you don't find bodies soon then by the time the street to drone flight training program is pushing people out at full capacity your man power levels will have dipped again on the exponential curve and that won't fix the problem then.

It's not a linear math. Kinda like how the fast rush in large groups of people who were already gonna get out pulls a lot of the people on the fence with them to get out. They aren't getting out because it's suddenly a good idea, they just see the writing on the wall of more 14-18 hour days or Saturday's at work or crap assignments away from home. It's the same problem the Army was going through during the surge.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[guineapigfury]

It will take just as long to put an enlisted pilot through URT and IQT as it will a commissioned one, assuming we're talking 18X.  If we're comparing BMT to OTS, the length is effectively the same.  Medical screening would be the same for both.  I'm not sure where you see a time savings, unless you're counting 4 years of ROTC or USAFA.  In any event, we're not manned for a surge of enlisted pilots to come through the FTU.  Holloman gets lots of new IP/ISO bodies, but they're barely enough to keep up with the outflow of separations.

[viper154]

As a student at the MQ-9 FTU on 3 separate occasions I've gone 10+ plus days without having an event. Doesn't matter who you want to put in the seat if you can't get people trained in a  timely manner to fill the seats.  Graduations are 6-8 weeks after the scheduled date (which is 5 months to begin with) and only getting worse with the influx of students. 

[Lawman]

It will take just as long to put an enlisted pilot through URT and IQT as it will a commissioned one, assuming we're talking 18X.  If we're comparing BMT to OTS, the length is effectively the same.  Medical screening would be the same for both.  I'm not sure where you see a time savings, unless you're counting 4 years of ROTC or USAFA.  In any event, we're not manned for a surge of enlisted pilots to come through the FTU.  Holloman gets lots of new IP/ISO bodies, but they're barely enough to keep up with the outflow of separations.

While true on the flight training pipeline you gotta look at the generation ability to even get guys to sit around waiting.

Right now you are trying to Fill Bucket D (drone pilots) with only guys from Bucket A (regular line pilots/cross flowed officers), buckets B (enlisted) and C (quick to generate enlisted recruiting) are untouchable. That wouldn't necessarily be a problem, except bucket A is already pretty much empty and as you said it takes years to fill it. Kicking off a massive recruiting drive nets you no result for a minimum of pretty much 4 years till effects are seen. So unless you start drawing from those other sources you aren't gonna need to worry about how quickly you can generate a pilot.

And from a bean counter perspective it's a lot cheaper to have a bunch of E6/7s standing around waiting on training while keeping their thumbs warm than it is a bunch of Majors and Captains do the same. That's gotta be attractive on somebodies pro/con list somewhere.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TnkrToad]

On March 20, 2016 at 0:54 AM, Lawman said:

That's true with any weapons system though.

Look at the Abrams for a great example of crew member development where you are grown into responsibility from that 18 year old no nothing. You don't start on that gun, you're a loading it... Then a driver, and prove you can take commands and learn how the tank and then later the platoon moves and fights. Then and only then do you become a gunner where you physically move and fire that main gun at the direction and authority of the tank commander (also typically enlisted). Then (typically around E6/7) that seasoned tanker is under the authority of the overall unit commander given the authority and responsibility to serve as a tank commander. He doesn't get paid any more than he did if he was a driver or loader. It's not he job that brings him more money and there is not a minimum or maximum rank/cost structure that's going to dictate when he gets that job.

Problem is there's no analogous, logical progression for the RPA operation. I can only go off what I read on this forum, but the only way your notional plan works for AF RPAs is to train folks up as sensor operators first, then at some point transition them to the pilot's seat. This creates a dual problem of further exacerbating what I read on here is a chronic shortage of sensor operators. Since the problem is throughput in initially training RPA pilots, again I don't see how you solve anything with this approach. 

What I think is the root issue regarding the officer vs. enlisted RPA driver debate is the combination of COCOMs' insatiable need for the capabilities RPAs provide, together with limits on the number of officers the Air Force can have relative to the overall force:

- The Air Force clearly needs to grow the RPA community, in order to meet COCOM requirements

- Big Blue feels it's best to use officers to fly RPAs. I would assume due to: (1) O's more likely to make it through training on time, (2) O's more likely to seek out new/novel ways to employ RPAs, & better able to integrate with manned aircraft pilot peers, (3) need to build/maintain a cadre of people who will eventually apply airpower at the operational and strategic levels

- The problem is the Air Force is limited by the numbers of officers it can have on the books. I can't quote the magic formula, but based on the overall size of the force, there can only be so many total officers. If the Air Force dramatically grows its RPA officer force--along with the additional Intel, Mx & other officer billets to support them--without substantial increases in the overall Air Force end strength, then this would necessarily mean shrinking the officer numbers in other communities

- I personally don't know of any line officer AFSC that's awash with excess officer bodies, so the Air Force is effectively in a damned-if-you-do/damned-if-you-don't scenario

- The "elegant" solution (using GC's words) is to train up enlisted RPA pilots, which avoids the necessity of cutting the officer force. Doing so will introduce a host of other problems, and as indicated in other posts won't really help the near-term problem--schoolhouse throughput--but at least it will keep us from gutting other Air Force functions even further. 

The "elegant" solution of having E's do officer jobs was done in the 1930s, with sergeant pilots. It worked great--two of the three members of Chennault's demo team were sergeant pilots. Of course, that was during the Great Depression (economic factors made staying on active duty very attractive), and both were Reserve Lt's. They had served on AD for two years, until such time their AD orders were up. They chose to revert to enlisted status because prospects were bleak on the outside and Army pay, while not great, was better than starving in the civil sector. I don't see either of these factors being at work today. Well-trained enlisted RPA pilots will punch at the earliest opportunity. 

I'm not saying the AF enlisted RPA pilot won't work, but I don't see how it could possibly be as elegant a solution as GC and Lawman present it to be. The Air Force will probably figure out a way to make it work as best as possible, in order to avoid further painful cuts to other officer communities. Seems to me that the enlisted RPA plan will come at the cost of (1) higher attrition rates in training and (2) minimal--if any--cost savings, due to the bonuses E's will have to be offered to keep them on AD. 

TT

[Guest]

I vote we bring back Warrant officers to fly RPAs and get rid of the two enlisted "super grades." If we get rid of Chiefs, there won't be anyone to bitch about untucked pt gear or reflective belts.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[60 driver]

On October 1, 2015 at 8:27 AM, Huggyu2 said:

"I was in the MC-12 in 2011 in Bagram.  We went out of our way to open communication with the Army King Airs doing a similar mission.  The Army's act was a clown show.  Their crews were poorly trained. "

You mean like leaving the TCAS on TA/RA in the stack and then filing a HATR every time it goes off? 

 

 

 

[Lawman]

That's true with any weapons system though.

Look at the Abrams for a great example of crew member development where you are grown into responsibility from that 18 year old no nothing. You don't start on that gun, you're a loading it... Then a driver, and prove you can take commands and learn how the tank and then later the platoon moves and fights. Then and only then do you become a gunner where you physically move and fire that main gun at the direction and authority of the tank commander (also typically enlisted). Then (typically around E6/7) that seasoned tanker is under the authority of the overall unit commander given the authority and responsibility to serve as a tank commander. He doesn't get paid any more than he did if he was a driver or loader. It's not he job that brings him more money and there is not a minimum or maximum rank/cost structure that's going to dictate when he gets that job.

Problem is there's no analogous, logical progression for the RPA operation. I can only go off what I read on this forum, but the only way your notional plan works for AF RPAs is to train folks up as sensor operators first, then at some point transition them to the pilot's seat. This creates a dual problem of further exacerbating what I read on here is a chronic shortage of sensor operators. Since the problem is throughput in initially training RPA pilots, again I don't see how you solve anything with this approach.

What I think is the root issue regarding the officer vs. enlisted RPA driver debate is the combination of COCOMs' insatiable need for the capabilities RPAs provide, together with limits on the number of officers the Air Force can have relative to the overall force:

- The Air Force clearly needs to grow the RPA community, in order to meet COCOM requirements

- Big Blue feels it's best to use officers to fly RPAs. I would assume due to: (1) O's more likely to make it through training on time, (2) O's more likely to seek out new/novel ways to employ RPAs, & better able to integrate with manned aircraft pilot peers, (3) need to build/maintain a cadre of people who will eventually apply airpower at the operational and strategic levels

- The problem is the Air Force is limited by the numbers of officers it can have on the books. I can't quote the magic formula, but based on the overall size of the force, there can only be so many total officers. If the Air Force dramatically grows its RPA officer force--along with the additional Intel, Mx & other officer billets to support them--without substantial increases in the overall Air Force end strength, then this would necessarily mean shrinking the officer numbers in other communities

- I personally don't know of any line officer AFSC that's awash with excess officer bodies, so the Air Force is effectively in a damned-if-you-do/damned-if-you-don't scenario

- The "elegant" solution (using GC's words) is to train up enlisted RPA pilots, which avoids the necessity of cutting the officer force. Doing so will introduce a host of other problems, and as indicated in other posts won't really help the near-term problem--schoolhouse throughput--but at least it will keep us from gutting other Air Force functions even further.

The "elegant" solution of having E's do officer jobs was done in the 1930s, with sergeant pilots. It worked great--two of the three members of Chennault's demo team were sergeant pilots. Of course, that was during the Great Depression (economic factors made staying on active duty very attractive), and both were Reserve Lt's. They had served on AD for two years, until such time their AD orders were up. They chose to revert to enlisted status because prospects were bleak on the outside and Army pay, while not great, was better than starving in the civil sector. I don't see either of these factors being at work today. Well-trained enlisted RPA pilots will punch at the earliest opportunity.

I'm not saying the AF enlisted RPA pilot won't work, but I don't see how it could possibly be as elegant a solution as GC and Lawman present it to be. The Air Force will probably figure out a way to make it work as best as possible, in order to avoid further painful cuts to other officer communities. Seems to me that the enlisted RPA plan will come at the cost of (1) higher attrition rates in training and (2) minimal--if any--cost savings, due to the bonuses E's will have to be offered to keep them on AD.

TT

No I'm not getting at that's how you grow a UAV pilot, but if the big objection people are having is Joe Snuffy E-3 out of school isn't ready to make the call and pull the trigger on a hellfire shot (and I'd agree given that kind of experience) then make that weapons release authority part of a qualification. Kinda similar to what we do with crew aircraft, where a Co-pilot is fully capable of flying, landing, tanking, etc... But he isn't signing for that airplane yet.

[deaddebate]

for AF RPAs is to train folks up as sensor operators first, then at some point transition them to the pilot's seat.

The third character, called a "Career field subdivision" (AFI 36-2101 Table 1.1.), is what differentiates this AFSC from RPA Sensor Op.  That character is defined as a "division of a career field that groups closely related AFSs in one or more ladders" (Attch 1).  Meaning this new AFSC is highly related to the existing 1U0X1, but not necessarily dependent on it as a feeder AFSC.  But that could be a requirement as a retrain-only AFSC--we won't know until 1 Apr 2016 when the final AFECD is published.

Also, I forgot to mention that the approved prefixes for 1U1X1 are: Prefix K - Aircrew Instructor / Prefix Q - Aircrew Standardization/Flight Examiner / Prefix T - Formal Training Instructor / Prefix U - Information Operations

[TnkrToad]

10 minutes ago, deaddebate said:

The third character, called a "Career field subdivision" (AFI 36-2101 Table 1.1.), is what differentiates this AFSC from RPA Sensor Op.  That character is defined as a "division of a career field that groups closely related AFSs in one or more ladders" (Attch 1).  Meaning this new AFSC is highly related to the existing 1U0X1, but not necessarily dependent on it as a feeder AFSC.  But that could be a requirement as a retrain-only AFSC--we won't know until 1 Apr 2016 when the final AFECD is published.

Also, I forgot to mention that the approved prefixes for 1U1X1 are: Prefix K - Aircrew Instructor / Prefix Q - Aircrew Standardization/Flight Examiner / Prefix T - Formal Training Instructor / Prefix U - Information Operations

I have no special knowledge as to how Big Blue intends to develop its enlisted RPA pilots. All I was trying to do is relate Lawman's tank crew analogy to that of developing an enlisted Reaper crew. In Lawman's tank example--if I read it right--an enlisted tanker progresses from loader, to driver, to gunner, to tank commander. Lots of time and opportunity to train/assess/mentor/eliminate folks along the way. If we want to create enlisted Reaper pilots, it seems an analogous flow would be for folks to progress from sensor operator to pilot. 

Of course, to make this analogy work, this would be something akin to the Army having tanks crewed by just two people--the tank commander (who is also the driver and gunner) and a loader. Just as I don't see the Army willingly embracing such a concept--I wouldn't be surprised if it were already technologically feasible--I personally have difficulty with the feasibility of an enlisted RPA crew, for the many reasons discussed earlier in this thread.

Speaking very conceptually, if the Air Force really wants to go the way of enlisted Reaper pilots, then perhaps a career flow from sensor operator to pilot would be at least logically viable. Much like the Army tank crew analogy, it would allow for the training/assessment/acculturation/etc. From what I read on this forum, though, this idea--while it might read well--is unlikely to work. From what I read, SO's simply have no desire to make the move to the other seat, and even if they did, enlisted pay scales simply would not compete with civilian salaries for doing the exact same job. 

I'll be interested to see how Big Blue really goes about implementing the enlisted RPA plan. I'm not optimistic, and I certainly don't find the idea "elegant."

TT

[guineapigfury]

Sensor manning is nearly as bad as pilot manning; we'd be cannibalizing the right seat to fill the left.  If any SOs want to make the jump, it will be only for the purpose of picking up the skill and departing for greener pastures.  So now we're taking cats on a 6 year enlistment and sending them through the FTU twice, all to get 30ish months of pilot time out of them with an expected reenlistment rate in the single digits.  That sounds just stupid enough for Big Blue to select it as the way forward.

[bluedevil]

10 hours ago, TnkrToad said:

- I personally don't know of any line officer AFSC that's awash with excess officer bodies, so the Air Force is effectively in a damned-if-you-do/damned-if-you-don't scenario

All I can say is Space Command.  I didn't think it was possible to waste so much officer manpower.  I'm sure it's a pissing match between MAJCOMS but there are units that are so officer heavy you can't take a piss without hitting one. 

[Sprkt69]

40 minutes ago, guineapigfury said:

Sensor manning is nearly as bad as pilot manning; we'd be cannibalizing the right seat to fill the left.  If any SOs want to make the jump, it will be only for the purpose of picking up the skill and departing for greener pastures.  So now we're taking cats on a 6 year enlistment and sending them through the FTU twice, all to get 30ish months of pilot time out of them with an expected reenlistment rate in the single digits.  That sounds just stupid enough for Big Blue to select it as the way forward.

Big Blue may just make them sign on for another 6-10 years after finishing the pilot FTU. You know, just like the officers

[SurelySerious]

Sensor manning is nearly as bad as pilot manning; we'd be cannibalizing the right seat to fill the left.  If any SOs want to make the jump, it will be only for the purpose of picking up the skill and departing for greener pastures.  So now we're taking cats on a 6 year enlistment and sending them through the FTU twice, all to get 30ish months of pilot time out of them with an expected reenlistment rate in the single digits.  That sounds just stupid enough for Big Blue to select it as the way forward.

Big Blue may just make them sign on for another 6-10 years after finishing the pilot FTU. You know, just like the officers

Because that 6 year urt commitment is solving the problem effectively.

[Duck]

Exactly why we have heard 14 year commitments coming to a UPT base near you! That way 10 years sounds like a great deal!

[Lawman]

This would be where arguing to institute a warrant officer program would make sense then. Get the extra pay and graduate some E's to a role that doesn't require the 4 year degree to fill the seat, but without all the bullshit broadening and box checking required to be a successful regular commissioned officer when you're trying to promote against peers outside that small community. It would only work though if the head office protected the field to be and do what they are supposed to be/do. Not F it up with this everybody is a leader so now we can use warrants outside the role of technical/tactical expert.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[StoleIt]

Could the CSAF/SecAF even institute such a change? Or would that have to be a congressional restructure of the AF to add WOs?

[TnkrToad]

10 hours ago, Lawman said:

This would be where arguing to institute a warrant officer program would make sense then. Get the extra pay and graduate some E's to a role that doesn't require the 4 year degree to fill the seat, but without all the bullshit broadening and box checking required to be a successful regular commissioned officer when you're trying to promote against peers outside that small community. It would only work though if the head office protected the field to be and do what they are supposed to be/do. Not F it up with this everybody is a leader so now we can use warrants outside the role of technical/tactical expert.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know you're enamored with the idea of re-instituting the warrant officer corps in the Air Force--a whole different rank structure that hasn't existed in the Air Force for decades--but it's not clear how doing so would really help. 

If E's without college degrees can be made RPA pilots, then it would be much smarter to (1) design an enlisted career path that would reasonably ensure E's entering RPA pilot training would successfully complete the program, and (2) incentivize E's--monetarily and otherwise--to want to be RPA pilots . . . and perhaps more importantly, remain on AD as RPA pilots. Keeping them as E's would help protect the field from getting screwed up by the "everybody is a leader so now we can use warrants outside the role of technical/tactical expert" problem Army warrants are currently experiencing.  As noted before though, I personally find it tough to envision an Air Force enlisted track that would set E's (with no prior college experience necessary) up for success in RPA pilot training (which would have to include weapons employment, except for Global Hawk drivers). Furthermore, you'd have to throw some pretty huge bonuses their way, or get awfully creative with non-financial incentives, to get them to remain on AD. 

I really don't see how the Warrant Officer idea is the panacea you make it out to be. 

TT